Page 1
Instructions for use
Title Influence of enamel matrix derivative on healing of root surfaces after bonding treatment and intentional replantation ofvertically fractured roots
Author(s) Sugaya, Tsutomu; Tomita, Mahito; Motoki, Youji; Miyaji, Hirofumi; Kawamami, Masamitsu
Citation Dental traumatology, 32(5), 397-401https://doi.org/10.1111/edt.12270
Issue Date 2016-10
Doc URL http://hdl.handle.net/2115/67216
RightsThis is the peer reviewed version of the following article: [ Influence of enamel matrix derivative on healing of rootsurfaces after bonding treatment and intentional replantation of vertically fractured roots.], which has been published infinal form at [http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/edt.12270]. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes inaccordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Self-Archiving.
Type article (author version)
File Information DT32(5).pdf
Hokkaido University Collection of Scholarly and Academic Papers : HUSCAP
Page 2
1
Title
Influence of enamel matrix derivative on healing of root surfaces after bonding
treatment and intentional replantation of vertically fractured roots
Author list
Tsutomu Sugaya, DDS, PhD, Mahito Tomita, DDS, PhD, Youji Motoki, DDS, PhD, Hirofumi
Miyaji, DDS, PhD, Masamitsu Kawamami, DDS, PhD
Institutional affiliations
Department of Periodontology and Endodontology,
Hokkaido University Graduate School of Dental Medicine
N13 W7 Kita-ku, Sapporo 060-8586
Japan
Corresponding author
Tsutomu Sugaya, DDS, PhD
Department of Periodontology and Endodontology
Hokkaido University Graduate School of Dental Medicine
N13 W7 Kita-ku, Sapporo 060-8586
Japan
E-mail: [email protected]
Tel: +81-11-706-4266
Fax: +81-11-706-4334
Running title
Healing of vertically fractured roots replanted with EMDOGAIN
Keywords
vertical root fracture, enamel matrix derivative, new cementum, root resorption, intentional
replantation
Page 3
1
Abstract
Background/Aim: The objectives of this study were to histopathologically evaluate
cementum regeneration on root surfaces when enamel matrix derivative was used to bond a
vertically fractured root, and to evaluate the effectiveness of enamel matrix derivative in
inhibiting root resorption.
Material and Methods: A total of 40 roots from 24 maxillary premolars in beagles were used.
The root was vertically fractured using a chisel and mallet. Super Bond was then used to
bond the fractured root. In the experimental group, the root surface was treated with
ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid and an enamel matrix derivative. The control group
received no treatment. The root was then replanted in its original location. Histopathological
observation and measurement using image analyzing software were carried out after eight
weeks.
Results: In the experimental group, shallow resorption cavities developed on the root
planed surfaces with new acellular cementum appearing over them. In the control group,
however, no new cementum was seen on the planed surfaces, and there was connective
tissue joining the roots. In some of the samples, resorption and multinucleated giant cells
were seen. The experimental group showed a significantly larger volume of cementum
formation (p<0.001), and the volume of root resorption was significantly smaller (p=0.004).
Conclusion: When bonding and replanting tooth roots after a vertical fracture, the
application of enamel matrix derivative was effective in regenerating cementum on root
surfaces from which periodontal ligament had been lost in the area around the fracture line,
and in reducing the incidence of root resorption.
Page 4
2
Keywords:
vertical root fracture, enamel matrix derivative, new cementum, root resorption, intentional
replantation
Page 5
3
Introduction
In vertical tooth root fractures, localized inflammation occurs in the periodontal tissue
around the line of fracture, and the probing depth abruptly becomes deeper, with bone
resorption occurring in many cases (1-4). The usual approach with a single-rooted tooth is to
extract the tooth or, in the case of multiple roots, to perform root resection or hemisection (1,
2, 5, 6). A number of attempts to clinically preserve teeth have been reported, with
successful outcomes of resin bonding, in particular (7-13). Sugaya et al (7)
used 4-methacryloxyethyl trimellitate anhydride in methyl methacrylate tri-n-butyl borane
(4-META/MMA-TBB) resin to bond 23 teeth with vertically fractured roots, and after six to 74
months of observation reported that 18 (78%) of the teeth could be preserved. Hayashi et al
(9) extracted 26 teeth with vertically fractured roots, bonded the fractured roots and
replanted them. After four to 74 months of observation, eight of the teeth ended up being
extracted, and longevity was calculated as 88.5% at 12 months after replantation and 69.2%
at 36 months. The outcomes described in these reports suggest that bonding treatment is
effective for vertically fractured roots. However, these reports also indicated that in cases
where there is significant destruction of periodontal tissue, deep pockets can develop
postoperatively, and there can be residual bone defects, mostly leading to a poor prognosis.
Consequently, in order to improve the success rate, regenerating cementum and periodontal
tissue on the tooth surface, is thought to be important.
Because enamel matrix derivative (EMD) promotes the growth of periodontal ligament
and facilitates differentiation into cementoblasts (14, 15), it is widely used to regenerate
periodontal tissue that has been lost as a result of periodontitis (16-19). Moreover, it was
found to be effective in inhibiting ankylosis and root resorption when used in replantation
(20-26). No studies, however, have evaluated the effects on cementum regeneration or on
Page 6
4
inhibition of root resorption along root surfaces from which periodontal ligament was lost
when EMD was used in intentional replantation.
Given that, the objectives of the study described here were to histopathologically evaluate
cementum regeneration and root resorption on root surfaces where periodontal ligament
was lost in the area around the line of fracture when EMD was used in treatment of a
vertically fractured root.
Material and methods
1) Experimental animals and sites
The experiment was performed in 40 roots of 24 teeth consisting of bilateral maxillary
premolars P1, P2 and P3 from four 10-month-old female beagles. This experiment was
carried out in accordance with the guidelines for the care and use of laboratory animals of
the Graduate School of Medicine, Hokkaido University (approval no. 07037).
2) Vertical fractures of the roots
Under general anesthesia comprising 0.1 ml/kg of medetomidine hydrochloride (Domitor,
Zenoaq, Fukushima, Japan) and 0.1 ml/kg of ketamine hydrochloride (Ketalar, Daiichi
Sankyo Propharma, Tokyo, Japan), local anesthesia was administered with 2% lidocaine
hydrochloride containing 1:80,000 epinephrine (Xylocaine Cartridge, Dentsply-Sankin,
Tokyo, Japan). After removal of the crowns, the cervical third of root canal was prepared
using a Peeso reamer #1 (Mani, Tochigi, Japan) and the apical part of the root canal was
prepared using a K-file (Mani, Tochigi, Japan). After the root canal had been prepared, the
root was vertically fractured using a chisel and mallet. The root canal was left open, without
intracanal medication or temporary sealing.
Page 7
5
2) Treatment method
Four weeks later, general and local anesthesia were administered, and, taking every effort
not to damage the periodontal ligament, the tooth was extracted using only forceps. A #5
round bur (Mani, Tochigi, Japan) was used to clean the root canal wall and fractured surface
of the root under irrigation with saline solution, and the infected tooth substance was
removed (Figure 1-A). After thorough cleaning with saline solution, followed by air drying,
the root canal walls and fracture surface were treated for 10 seconds with 10% citric acid
with 3% ferric chloride (Green Activator, Sun Medical, Shiga, Japan), and were then washed
with saline solution and air dried. We then used 4-META/MMA-TBB resin (Super-Bond, Sun
Medical, Shiga, Japan) to bond the fractured root. After the resin had completely hardened
in saline solution, excess resin was removed using a hand scaler. Additionally, the
periodontal ligament was removed from the root surface around the line of fracture to a
width of 1.4 mm by means of root planing (Figure 1-B). The teeth were then randomly
classified into two groups based on the subsequent treatment approach.
Experimental group: The root planing site was treated for three minutes with 24%
ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (PrefGel®, Straumann, Basel, Switzerland), after which the
area was washed with saline solution and an enamel matrix derivative (EMDOGAIN®,
Straumann, Basel, Switzerland) was applied (Figure 1-C).
Control group: The root surface was not treated with PrefGel®, nor was EMDOGAIN®
applied.
In both groups, granulation tissue was removed from the alveolar socket, after which the
root was replanted in its original position and fixed to the proximal teeth with Super-Bond.
Page 8
6
4) Evaluation method
After eight weeks, the dogs were sacrificed and histopathological observation and
measurement were carried out. The fixed blocks were immersed in acetone to dissolve the
Super-Bond, and were then demineralized and sliced at a thickness of 5 μm in the
perpendicular direction along the longitudinal axis of the root, and stained with hematoxylin
and eosin. Pathological measurements were done at a point 4 mm from the CEJ to the
apical side. The morphology of healing on each planed root surface was then assigned to
one of four classifications: (1) cementum, (2) connecting tissue (parallel fibers on the root
surface, with no root resorption), (3) inflammatory root resorption (parallel fibers on the root
surface, with root resorption), and (4) ankylosis. Measurements were done using image
analyzing software (Image J, Freeware, USA).
Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS Statistics Version 21 (IBM, Armonk, NY,
USA), and the Mann-Whitney U test was performed.
Results
Of the 24 teeth and 40 roots used in the experiment, roots that were not fractured
or replanted because they were used as anchors after replantation, and those that fractured
obliquely, or fractured into three parts, were excluded from the experiment. The remaining
roots were classified into nine roots and 18 sites in the experimental group, and five roots
and 10 sites in the control group, and these were used for measurement.
In the experimental group, shallow resorption cavity developed on the surfaces of
roots that had been planed, with new cementum appearing over them. The new cementum
was acellular (Figure 2). However, there was no formation of cementum on the Super-Bond
that was used to seal the gap created by the fracture. In the control group, however, no new
Page 9
7
cementum was seen and there was connective tissue on the surfaces of roots that had been
planed. In some of the samples, the root surface had resorbed, and multinucleated giant
cells thought to be odontoclasts were seen (Figure 3).
Histological measurements showed no significant differences (p>0.05) between the two
groups in root planing length or ankylosis (Table 1). Compared to the control group, the
experimental group had significantly longer cementum formation (p<0.001), and the length
of root resorption was significantly smaller (p=0.004).
Discussion
The results of the study described here show that, when EMDOGAIN® was used in
bonding and replantation of vertically fractured roots, cementum was regenerated on root
surfaces from which the periodontal ligament had been removed by means of root planing.
The effectiveness of EMDOGAIN® in regenerating cementum during flap surgery to treat
periodontitis has been widely reported (16-19), and this study has shown that EMDOGAIN®
is also effective in intentional replantation. In experiments in which dehiscence defects were
created in monkeys and EMDOGAIN® was used, it was reported that 60 to 80% of the
cementum was regenerated in a defect of 6 mm (27). In the present study, however, the
cementum regeneration was smaller, at approximately 0.5 mm. This could be because, with
intentional replantation, the periodontal ligament has actually been severed, making it
necessary to repair the damaged periodontal ligament, and this possibly had a negative
impact on regeneration. The newly generated cementum was acellular, and this finding is
consistent with the cementum regenerated when EMDOGAIN® was used in periodontal
surgery (27). The development of a resin cement capable of inducing cementum growth
may further enhance the prognosis of this type of treatment.
Page 10
8
In the control group, root resorption was seen on root surfaces from which the
periodontal ligament had been removed by means of root planing, but in the experimental
group, in which EMDOGAIN® was applied additionally, there was less root resorption. It has
been reported that if surface root resorption of the cementum associated with replantation
causes exposure of a contaminated dentinal canal, inflammatory root resorption will occur
without the resorption cavity being repaired with newly generated cementum (28). In the
present study, after the roots had been vertically fractured, the root canals were left open for
four weeks to allow bacterial infection, so there was a possibility that bacteria infiltrated not
only the root canal, but penetrated all the way to the dentinal tubules. This may be why
inflammatory root resorption occurred in the area where the cementum was damaged or
missing after replantation. In the experimental group, there was less inflammatory resorption
than in the control group. This is thought to have been because EMDOGAIN® promoted the
formation of cementum after surface resorption. Also, because it has been reported that
EMDOGAIN® inhibits inflammation (29) and has an antibacterial effect (30-32), the inhibition
of surface inflammation of the contaminated dentinal tubules may have played a role in
reducing root resorption.
With respect to ankylosis of the damaged part of the periodontal ligament, there
were no differences between the two groups. This could possibly be because the root canals
were left open for four weeks following vertical fracture, causing bone resorption in the area
around the line of fracture as a result of bacterial infection, and bone was not sufficiently
regenerated after replantation. In the experiment, observation was carried out eight weeks
after replantation, and if a longer period had been allowed, ankylosis might have occurred.
Also, there have been reports in which ankylosis was diagnosed five years following
replantation (33), and an observation period of eight weeks may be too short to evaluate
Page 11
9
ankylosis. However, in research in which EMDOGAIN® was applied as part of intentional
replantation, and the status of healing at the site where periodontal ligament was present
was evaluated, the EMDOGAIN® was shown to reduce ankyloses (20,21,24,25), and the
use of EMDOGAIN® can be expected to prove advantageous in healing at sites where there
is residual periodontal ligament.
In many cases, if the root fractures vertically, the periodontal ligament in the area
around the line of fracture is lost. If EMDOGAIN® is used and cementum is regenerated
when performing intentional replantation, it is believed that periodontal pockets will become
shallow following surgery, and there will be less root resorption, improving the prognosis for
the fractured root. In the experiment described here, the root planing range was set at 1.4
mm, envisioning loss of the periodontal ligament in the area around the line of fracture.
Because we were not able to regenerate all of the damaged cementum despite using this
approach, this may be effective only when the volume of periodontal ligament lost after
fracture is even smaller.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank Sun Medical for providing Super Bond used in this study.
The authors deny any conflicts of interest related to this study.
Page 12
10
References
1. Polson AM. Periodontal destruction associated with vertical root fractures. J Periodontol
1977;48:27-32.
2. Pitts DL, Natkin E. Diagnosis and treatment of vertical root fractures. J Endod
1983;9:338-346.
3. Schetritt A, Steffensen B. Diagnosis and management of vertical root fractures. J Can
Dent Assoc 1995; 61:607-613.
4. Moule AJ, Kahler B. Diagnosis and management of teeth with vertical root fractures.
Aust Dent J 1999;44:75-87.
5. Lommel TJ, Meister F, Gerstein H, Davies E, Tilk MA. Alveolar bone loss associated
with vertical root fractures. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Oathol 1978;45:909-919.
6. Barkhordar RA. Treatment of vertical root fracture: a case report. Quintessence Int
1991;22:707-709.
7. Sugaya T, Kawanami M, Noguchi H, Kato H, Masaka N. Periodontal healing after
bonding treatment of vertical root fracture. Dent Traumatol 2001;17:174-179.
8. Hayashi M, Kinomoto Y, Miura M, Sato I, Takeshige F, Ebisu S. Short-term evaluation of
intentional replantation of vertically fractured roots reconstructed with dentin-bonded
resin. J Endod 2002;28:120-124.
9. Hayashi M, Kinomoto Y, Takeshige F, Ebisu S. Prognosis of intentional replantation of
vertically fractured roots reconstructed with dentin-bonded resin. J Endod
2004;30:145-158.
10. Funato A, Funato H, Matsumoto K. Treatment of a vertical root fracture. Endod Dent
Traumatol 1999;15:46-47.
11. Kawai K, Masaka N. Vertical root fracture treated by bonding fragments and rotational
Page 13
11
replantation. Dent Traumatol 2002;18:42-45.
12. Kudou Y, Kubota M. Replantation with intentional rotation of a complete vertically
fractured root using adhesive resin cement. Dent Traumatol 2003;19:115-117.
13. Unver S, Onay EO, Ungor M.Intentional re-plantation of a vertically fractured tooth
repaired with an adhesive resin. Int Endod J 2011;44:1069-1078.
14. Gestrelius S, Andersson C, Lidström D, Hammarström L, Somerman M. In vitro studies
on periodontal ligament cells and enamel matrix derivative.J Clin Periodontol
1997;24:685-692.
15. Heijl L. Periodontal regeneration with enamel matrix derivative in one human
experimental defect. A case report. J Clin Periodontol 1997;24:693-696.
16. Heijl L, Heden G, Svärdström G, Ostgren A. Enamel matrix derivative (EMDOGAIN) in
the treatment of intrabony periodontal defects. J Clin Periodontol 1997;24:705-714.
17. Kalpidis CD, Ruben MP. Treatment of intrabony periodontal defects with enamel matrix
derivative: a literature review. J Periodontol 2002;73:1360-1376.
18. Koop R, Merheb J, Quirynen M.Periodontal regeneration with enamel matrix derivative
in reconstructive periodontal therapy: a systematic review. J Periodontol
2012;83:707-720.
19. Graziani F, Gennai S, Cei S, Ducci F, Discepoli N, Carmignani A, Tonetti M. Does
enamel matrix derivative application provide additional clinical benefits in residual
periodontal pockets associated with suprabony defects? A systematic review and
meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. J Clin Periodontol 2014;41:377-386.
20. Iqbal MK, Bamaas N. Effect of enamel matrix derivative (EMDOGAIN) upon periodontal
healing after replantation of permanent incisors in beagle dogs. Dent Traumatol
2001;17:36-45.
Page 14
12
21. Pohl Y, Filippi A, Kirschner H. Results after replantation of avulsed permanent teeth. II.
Periodontal healing and the role of physiologic storage and antiresorptive-regenerative
therapy. Dent Traumatol 2005;21:93-101.
22. Barrett EJ, Kenny DJ, Tenenbaum HC, Sigal MJ, Johnston DH. Replantation of
permanent incisors in children using Emdogain. Dent Traumatol 2005;21:269-275.
23. Chappuis V, von Arx T. Replantation of 45 avulsed permanent teeth: a 1-year follow-up
study. Dent Traumatol 2005;21:289-296.
24. Poi WR, Carvalho RM, Panzarini SR, Sonoda CK, Manfrin TM, Rodrigues Tda S.
Influence of enamel matrix derivative (Emdogain) and sodium fluoride on the healing
process in delayed tooth replantation: histologic and histometric analysis in rats. Dent
Traumatol 2007;23:35-41.
25. Kim SG, Ryu SI. Enamel matrix derivative for replanted teeth in animal models: a
systematic review and meta-analysis. Restor Dent Endod 2013;38:194-203.
26. Tuna EB, Arai K, Tekkesin MS, Seymen F, Gencay K, Kuboyama N, Maeda T. Effect of
fibroblast growth factor and enamel matrix derivative treatment on root resorption after
delayed replantation. Dent Traumatol 2015;31:49-56.
27. Hammarström L, Heijl L, Gestrelius S. Periodontal regeneration in a buccal dehiscence
model in monkeys after application of enamel matrix proteins. J Clin Periodontol
1997 ;24:669-677.
28. Ne RF, Witherspoon DE, Gutmann JL. Tooth resorption. Quintessence Int
1999 ;30:9-25.
29. Miron RJ, Dard M, Weinreb M. Enamel matrix derivative, inflammation and soft tissue
wound healing. J Periodontal Res 2014;50:555-569.
Page 15
13
30. Sculean A, Auschill TM, Donos N, Brecx M, Arweiler NB. Effect of an enamel matrix
protein derivative (Emdogain) on ex vivo dental plaque vitality. J Clin Periodontol
2001;28:1074-1078.
31. Arweiler NB, Auschill TM, Donos N, Sculean A. Antibacterial effect of an enamel matrix
protein derivative on in vivo dental biofilm vitality. Clin Oral Investig 2002;6:205-209.
32. Newman SA, Coscia SA, Jotwani R, Iacono VJ, Cutler CW. Effects of enamel matrix
derivative on Porphyromonas gingivalis. J Periodontol 2003;74:1191-1195.
33. Andreasen JO, Borum MK, Jacobsen HL, Andreasen FM. Replantation of 400 avulsed
permanent incisors. 4. Factors related to periodontal ligament healing. Dent Traumatol
1995;11:76-89.
Page 16
14
Figure Legends
Figure 1: Preparation of the roots in the experimental group
A: Extracted root. B: After bonding. Root surface after root planing (↔). C: After application
of EMDOGAIN®
Figure 2: Histological sections of experimental group
a: New cementum (arrowhead) was seen on the resorbed root surface.
Figure 3: Histological sections of control group
a: No new cementum was seen on surfaces where root planing was done (arrowhead).
b: Root resorption and multinucleated giant cells (arrow) can be seen.
Table 1. Root surface morphology after eight weeks
mean±S.D.(mm)
*: Significant difference between the two groups (Mann-Whitney U test, p<0.01)
Page 17
1
Table 1. Root surface morphology after eight weeks
Root planed
New cementum *
Connective tissue
Inflammatory root resorption * Ankylosis
Experimental group 1.39±0.31 0.49±0.34 0.63±0.37 0.03±0.13 0.22±0.34
Control group 1.27±0.23 0±0 0.58±0.46 0.53±0.57 0.15±0.34
mean±S.D.(mm)
*: Significant difference between the two groups (Mann-Whitney U test, p<0.01)
Page 19
Bone
New cementum
Super-Bond
Root
a a
200µm 50µm
Bone
Page 20
Root
a
a
b
b
▲ ▲ ▲ 200µm
50µm
50µm
Super-Bond
Bone